Talk:Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Prayagraj

India: Uttar Pradesh / Education Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Clean-up

The article looks so scattered, can anybody help me to clean-up a mesh of pictures and non-cited content. Some sections like departments serves no purpose. JPMEENA (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNIGUIDE is a good place to start. Regarding the list of departments, discussion in prose would be preferable, but I don't agree it "serves no purpose". Lets say it serves little purpose at this state. --Muhandes (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placements

Many companies visit MNNIT for campus placement of students. Some of them are Public Sector Units and others are private sector companies. Notable PSUs are IOCL,NTPC,BHEL,DRDO,CIL,BPCL,HPCL,GAIL etc and private companies are Hero Honda,Maruti Udyog,Bajaj Auto etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.27.29 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be true but what are sources of information? I think they doesn't recruit regularly. Furthermore content should be neutral and a wiki-users shouldn't get biased view by incorrect facts. JPMEENA (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sources, this is very highly indiscriminate information, not to speak of it being promotional. Common practice is not to include placement sections at all for India universities. See also discussion here. I removed one sentence about "being visited by top companies" which was so clearly promotional I don't think anyone could argue it, and waiting with the removal of the rest for this discussion to end. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would never say "top companies"-(not written by me), I don't identify any as top or low? Secondly, most "Indian Universities" don't offer placements, and most IITs or NITs or engineering colleges offer placements and you can find placement sections there. What I can support you about is that because this particular fact gives a distorted picture of placement scenario so 1-2 lines can be written in addition about general scenario. Since this 'unusual fact is important so it needs to be in light( because other institute pages can't contain this fact). JPMEENA (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See answer to that in your own talk page. Please don't throw around false information before checking. --Muhandes (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editor does not wish me to copy the entire conversation from his talk page, here's the summary of what I said there, for the benefit of future participating editors: I think this section to be promotional and may be considered boosterism. I think placements sections are also very often borderline indiscriminate information. They are very rarely included, and often removed on site by experienced editors, so it is also against common practice. In answer to the above claim that "most IITs or NITs" have such sections, I went and counted. Of the seven original IITs only two have placements section, and only one of them mentions salaries. Of the eight new IITs none have placements sections. Of the 23 NITs only one (except MNNIT) has placements section. I think these three simply slipped under the radar, or are the exceptions. I wish to hear other editors' input so we can resolve this dispute. --Muhandes (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in India colleges are often judged based on the kind of companies that visit the campus for recruitment. For instance, it made big news in India when a guy from IIT Delhi was recruited by Facebook and was offered a salary of around 75 Lakh Rupees (US$ 150000) per annum. In this light, I think that placement sections are necessary sections to have. It goes without saying that strong references and a neutral tone are compulsory. I think we shouldn't go by which other article has a placement section, and then make decisions based on that; There isn't any FA in WP:INEI, and we shouldn't really be taking too much suggestions from articles which aren't FAs. Of course, I'm open minded about this and am open to other viewpoints. Lynch 7 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my somewhat late response, as I'm on holiday vacation. I asked Mike to comment as I do appreciate the importance of the experienced local view, which I obviously lack. On the other hand you must realise how cheesy and promotional the current section sounds to an outsider. In about a year of close contact with India higher education articles I have yet to see a single neutral placements section, and this one is no different. I guess what I'm saying is that although I understand the local cultural importance of such sections, I fail to see how they can be made not to contradict WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. See for example the placement section for IIT Kharagpur which is a really good (or bad) example of how not to write from a neutral view. Even the rather modest section for IIT Madras isn't really neutral. I don't think other articles should be the only (or even the major) yardstick, but they do show the common practice, which may hint at the difficulties I mentioned. I don't want to seem like I'm forum shopping, but perhaps this really merits an even wider forum of discussion, maybe at WT:INEI? --Muhandes (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

This discussion was moved here from my home page as this seems a more appropriate place. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are experienced editor on wikipedia but I would like to request you that please allow logo at the top of the infobox. You visit other top pages of universities or colleges and you would come to know. The best reason is maintaining format across article. Image doesn't mean that that it would be a building image, logo is also image which shows identity of an organization more clearly. JPMEENA (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there are two competing formats. In one the first image is a seal and in the other it is some photograph that represents the institute. My personal preference is with the latter, but indeed the former may be more prevalent. This may or may not be because many institutes do not have a single piece of imagery that represents the institute. If you, as a local, thinks the image of the main building does not represent the institute well, and since this seems to also be a matter of taste, I am not going to object if you replace it with the seal. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section

An attempt is being made to add an award given to Nand Kumar Singh at this article. As the certificate shows, this is a personal award and does not belong in this article. --Muhandes (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812215217/http://pune.cdac.in/html/npsf/param10k/p_summ.aspx to http://pune.cdac.in/html/npsf/param10k/p_summ.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]